|
I think that post perfectly puts together my thoughts on why they weren't respected, and what rolls those classes filled in society. Nothing that you said surprises me, or is different than what I suspected. I guess it's just my own colored look on how our two different societies viewed these individuals. Really, there isn't that much differance, many times we hear stories about people being dissuaded from becoming actors, sports stars, etc. for those very same reasons today, and there is still a stigma related to saying "My son wants to be an actor/dancer/professional athlete." And even then there are still more stigmas, such as being asked what sport or role they want to play, "Oh, so he wants to be a quarterback?" "No, a professional wrestler." or what have you. I think what really strikes me is the almost absolute universal hatred of ANY of those outcomes in ancient roman society. Nowhere (that I'm aware of) are there records saying that any family was proud to have a gladiator or actor in their annuls, where as today someone would be extremely proud to claim someone like that as their ancestor or founding member of their family, and it's that particular difference that really gets me.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Although, picking up the 'theatre' thread, the Greek perspective (or certainly the Athenian perspective because miserable little undergrads need to work their way up to learning about the vast variety of Greek city-states) is precisely one where theatre is absolutely bound up with religion and mystery, and thus worthy of great attention. Certainly, playwright and choregos probably got more attention than the actors could - though I guess you can partly blame that on the masks - but the theatre was definitely important. And if it started so, its influence grew from there, tragedies and comedies alike coming to be not merely religious and moral, but also examining (and shaping) culture, learning, philosophy and politics. I suppose there has to be something of a difference when the Athenians had a play which was going to influence the vast majority of the citizen body in contrast to the Late Republic/Empire's further-flung control and more top-down rulership, but the way theatre seems to fade out of the narrative somewhat in Rome is pretty interesting. Actually, that brings up something I'd like to ask. Were there many (or any) cases of politics really crossing over into the theatrical realm in Rome? I mean, like Cleon prosecuting Aristophanes for the Babylonians or the Capture of Miletus getting banned and Phrynichus being fined so heavily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
my dad posted:How much did Egyptian culture change over time? Egypt existed for a ridiculously long amount of time, and yet the impression I get from history shows is that it remained pretty much the same until the Persians and Alex the Great showed up. Is this true? If it is, how is it possible for a culture to remain in stasis for so long? If it's not, then what did change? You can try asking that question here! Someone started a dedicated ancient Egyptian A/T thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Sleep of Bronze posted:Although, picking up the 'theatre' thread, the Greek perspective (or certainly the Athenian perspective because miserable little undergrads need to work their way up to learning about the vast variety of Greek city-states) is precisely one where theatre is absolutely bound up with religion and mystery, and thus worthy of great attention. Certainly, playwright and choregos probably got more attention than the actors could - though I guess you can partly blame that on the masks - but the theatre was definitely important. And if it started so, its influence grew from there, tragedies and comedies alike coming to be not merely religious and moral, but also examining (and shaping) culture, learning, philosophy and politics. Something else which might have been a factor is that ancient Greek culture had a certain view of truth and deception. Proper men were supposed to be honest and hate liars (consider Achilles' dig at Odysseus in the Iliad - roughly, "I hate the man who holds one thing in his heart while his lips say another more than I hate death" - or the presentation of Odysseus as a Machiavellian scumbag in later plays like Ajax or Philoctetes). Actors, by definition, are liars who pretend to be someone they aren't. It might have been the case that acting as a profession was viewed with scorn because of this attitude - that only someone with a twisted soul would countenance lying for a living.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
brozozo posted:You can try asking that question here! Someone started a dedicated ancient Egyptian A/T thread. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
The primary reason for the contempt in which most entertainers were held is that most of them weren't Romans. Even in their own city at times, Romans would have been a minority, outnumbered by immigrants, slaves and freedmen of various sibject peoples. It wasn't that entertainers were all poor (they weren't) or part of some sort of untouchable caste. They just weren't generally Roman. So in addition to the fact that their labor didn't rate very high on the scale of what traditional Romans valued (politics, soldiering, farming), you also had the point that let's say, a freedman Greek actor, wasn't particularly interested in becoming a senator, farmer or soldier, or even becoming a good little Roman except as it benefits him. He didn't embrace Roman life or culture. And Romans themselves who chose that life were oddities and looked down upon. In fact, a Greek freedman who chose to assimilate into Roman life would climb the social ladder faster than a Roman who chose the Greek life and joined an acting troupe. Roman men of any worthwhile class aspired to dignitas and gravitas, dignity and gravity. These aren't characteristics typically valued in performers of any kind, then or today. It doesn't mean the performers were herded up and branded, or socially unclean. They just weren't considered socially relevant to their overlords beyond their entertainment function.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
physeter posted:Roman men of any worthwhile class aspired to dignitas and gravitas, dignity and gravity. These aren't characteristics typically valued in performers of any kind, then or today. It doesn't mean the performers were herded up and branded, or socially unclean. They just weren't considered socially relevant to their overlords beyond their entertainment function. Please correct me if I'm way wrong here (I probably am, sorry!) as I'm going off of memory of a documentary I once saw on Roman art - but I believe these desired characteristics of dignitas and gravitas are why Romans favoured realistic portraiture over more beautified representations. Like this guy:  Look at all those wrinkles, the sagging flesh, the bags under the eyes, the receding hairline and the worlds most stern expression. Each line and crease of his face seems to radiate serious authority, I have no idea who this guy is but just looking at him I think he is one grave, important guy. You don't joke about with a face like that. Today our politicians prefer to look like this airbrushed monstrosity:  Which to me is closer the smooth, polished look you expect from actors. I like to think if Cameron rocked up to the senate he would have been laughed out of the place with some sick burns smacking him in the rear end on his way out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Indeed. The rich and powerful today might not aspire to be auto mechanics just as the rich and powerful in ancient Rome would not aspire to be actors. Lower/poorer classes however might see these a pretty good professions with good earnings potential. Since we only have records from the rich and powerful we only have their perspective on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Please correct me if I'm way wrong here (I probably am, sorry!) as I'm going off of memory of a documentary I once saw on Roman art - but I believe these desired characteristics of dignitas and gravitas are why Romans favoured realistic portraiture over more beautified representations. Like this guy: This is completely correct. In fact, the portraits may have exaggerated those features somewhat to lend more gravitas to the figure. This changes after the Republic, though. Augustus is always depicted in the prime of his life and this is the way most imperial portraits remain afterward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This is completely correct. In fact, the portraits may have exaggerated those features somewhat to lend more gravitas to the figure. Was Augustus the first guy, or one of the first, to prefere younger, fresher looking portraiture? Why change at all, was it to keep in any changing social values or was he just a super cool trend setter, like Ceaser and his loose garters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Was Augustus the first guy, or one of the first, to prefere younger, fresher looking portraiture? Why change at all, was it to keep in any changing social values or was he just a super cool trend setter, like Ceaser and his loose garters? It's been a while since my courses on this so I hope I'm not misremembering. It's believed to have stemmed from Egypt. In order to keep things calm there more easily, Augustus allowed himself to be depicted as pharaoh and worshiped as a god, which were both massive no-nos prior. Gods, naturally, are depicted as ideals. I'm not sure if we know why this spread further than Egypt, but somebody (either Augustus or his propaganda minister) thought it was a good idea to do everywhere. The imperial cult follows. Augustus' portraiture is also a different style. It's much more in the Hellenistic tradition, where idealistic portrayals had always been the standard. I would bet you anything that it was copying Alexander to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
A_Bluenoser posted:From a certain perspective actors, prostitutes and gladiators are all the same thing - people who entertain you using their voices and bodies. There have been plenty of high-class prostitutes in history who were very highly trained and well-paid but in few cultures would their profession have been considered something to aspire to by the upper classes. From that perspective it's not hard to see why actors were not treated any differently. It's also worth noting that in a lot of cultures theatre was not considered a particularly high form of art. Most of Shakespeare's plays, for instance, would probably have been enjoyed much as summer blockbusters are today rather than as great works of art. Funnily enough, part of the education of young noble sons was to reenact famous trials and such, acting out various roles and positions in the debates. Being able to speak in public was something that was expected of every man, so a lot of attention was given to the voice and body language. It was also used to instill values of masculinity through examples. Although its mostly a thing from the Empire iirc, coming into vogue during the time of the Second Sophistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
"Portraits" became more and more Hellenically idealized as the Empire encompassed more and more Hellenic subjects, basically. This is said to be true all throughout the Juleo-Claudian period, at which point there is an almost collapse back to conservative roots in the depictions of Vespasian. Not necessarily gravitas, as he has that poo poo-eating grin on most of his stuff, but something very inclined to old Roman realism, and indicating that he wanted exactly that message to go out to the Empire. Then after that it gets back to the propaganda garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Vespasian was the first total outsider emperor, who was considered a common brute by most of the sophisticated types. He was awesome. He was also time-traveling Lyndon Johnson. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Vespasian was the first total outsider emperor, who was considered a common brute by most of the sophisticated types. He was awesome. He was also time-traveling Lyndon Johnson. Did Vespasian like to pee on his bodyguards too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Did Vespasian like to pee on his bodyguards too? No, but he did enact a tax on public urinals (specifically the collection of urine for the ammonia and other useful chemicals) and deflected criticism by saying "pecunia non olet" ("money doesn't smell"). Or possibly waving a coin under his son's nose and asking if it stinks or not despite coming from a urine-related tax. Vespasian was awesome. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Mar 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
physeter posted:The primary reason for the contempt in which most entertainers were held is that most of them weren't Romans. In the case of theatre, at any rate, it may also be relevant that it was originally a Greek art form. The Romans had a deeply ambivalent attitude towards the Greeks and Greek culture. They admired and mistrusted the Greeks in about equal measure. It's almost comparable to the attitude the British used to have towards the French. "On the one hand, they have culture; on the other hand, they're slippery, conniving and untrustworthy. And anyway, who wants culture - it's for wimps anyway, real men get out there and conquer empires!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Are you somehow implying that our Empire has gone away and that we don't still have that attitude towards the French? You laughable little man. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Another factor in Augustus being portrayed as young in sculpture is that he was still quite young when he came to power in Rome, although it wasn't until he was in his mid-30s that Antony had finally been taken care of and his formal position as princeps confirmed. It is unsurprising that the depictions of him therefore remained youthful even as he aged. After Augustus, it varies quite a bit and we don't have enough busts and such left to know whether any of the old-fashioned "dignitas et gravitas" busts were made alongside more youthful depictions. Some statues blend the Greek and old Roman styles and show a small amount of imperfection rather than cleaning the face up entirely, though. The bust of Vespasian above is a good indicator that the old style was still relatively popular after the fall of the Republic, too. At least for the more down to earth emperors, anyway (there were not very many of those). Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Mar 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:
Actually I think this is a case of its projecting our own cultural experiences onto the past rather than our experiences letting us see something totally new that everyone else has missed or not been able to grasp. The idea of rich young people bucking social trends and fostering new artistic movements really isn't a modern thing. He'll just look at dandies and the invention of the modern gentleman's suit. The difference is modern punk and hippy type movements were examples of genuine counter cultures that involved more than just the elites and genuinely affected how people lived, viewed the world, etc. I think that in all likelihood the movement seen in Rome was closer to more old fashioned counter cultures I.e.limited to the elites. Carlin really just explains what was going on in a manner that has more resonance to modern readers. I don't think it really contributes anything in understanding the events though. At best it's just updating the terminology for modern readers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
So what's the deal with the corvus? Was it an actual thing? It seems ridiculously impratical and as far as i know not a single ship has been found with one. Yet it's mentioned all over the Punic wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
They were used mostly early in the war, notably at the battle of Mylae. They were pretty much good for one time only, as once the Carthaginians knew about them it was not that hard to avoid them. They were a pretty brilliant way to get some confidence in the Roman navy and make the Carthaginians less confident on the seas. The were unwieldy as you said and they were abandoned not long after their debut. I'm not aware of any doubts of their existence, but I am hardly a historian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
They definitely existed. We just rarely find anything from ancient ships because they are like custom designed to not survive. A ship has to sink in a very specific environment to be preserved, and most don't. The corvus was unwieldy but a brilliant way to blunt Carthage's naval superiority quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Vespasian was the first total outsider emperor, who was considered a common brute by most of the sophisticated types. He was awesome. He was also time-traveling Lyndon Johnson. Now the tunic, when you sit down, everything falls out, your money, your knife, everything, so I need at least another uncia in the pockets. And another thing - the the interulus, down where your nuts hang - is always a little too tight, so when you make them up, give me an uncia that I can let out there, uh because they cut me, it's just like riding a sword. These are almost, these are the best I've had anywhere in the Empire. But, uh when I gain a little weight they cut me under there. So, leave me , you never do have much of margin there. See if you can't leave me an uncia from where the knot ends, round, under my, back to my bunghole, so I can let it out there if I need to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Vespasian was the first total outsider emperor, who was considered a common brute by most of the sophisticated types. He was awesome. He was also time-traveling Lyndon Johnson. Timetraveler or immortal? I mean, he did give the Pope a bust of himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
brozozo posted:I know you might be retreading the same ground for you, but I immensely enjoyed Norwich's three volume Byzantium. I wish those existed in an e-book format. I've already read volumes 1 and 2, but I can only find pretty expensive used copies of 3, and having a Kindle makes everything so much easier with e-books... Norwich's book on the Papacy is also extremely interesting, and some of those ancient popes led lives so different from our modern image of the pope that makes it even more fun to read.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:I wish those existed in an e-book format. I've already read volumes 1 and 2, but I can only find pretty expensive used copies of 3, and having a Kindle makes everything so much easier with e-books... They are rather expensive books! I didn't know Norwich was still writing; I'll have to pick up that popes book. Another one of his that I really enjoyed was A History of Venice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
According to ABC news, Pontius Pilate was a Roman emperor who crucified Jesus.  Tiberius is going to be pissed when he hears about this attempted usurper! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
I just recently finished Colleen McCullough's "Masters of Rome" series, and it made for an incredibly compelling series of books. From what I've looked up on it though, despite her academic background and apparently high level of historical research it seems she just flat out made up a bunch of stuff, plus she seems to be firmly of the opinion that Julius Caesar really could do no wrong, and always had the best and brightest of intentions. So a few questions based on what I've read, sorry if any of this has come up in the last 100 pages already, and sorry that the focus is on fictional accounts of real history! Did Sulla really have a close personal and political relationship with Marius before The Social War? I've read conflicting accounts that he never really liked or got on with Marius, and that he tried to basically erase him from the history books/destroy his reputation after he died. Was Marius really responsible for making Caesar the Flamen Dialis? Did he do it out of fear of being eclipsed by Caesar? Was there ever any suggestion of foul play in the death of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus? Was Sulla ever implicated? Did Mark Antony indulge in pretended homosexual affairs in his youth in order to scandalize Roman society? Did Caesar really grow up in the Subura? Was his mother an active landlord with connections to organized crime in the city? Was Caesar really so humorless about the barbs about his alleged homosexuality? Was Pompey as arrogant and self-confident as he is made out to be in his youth before going to Spain and getting his rear end handed to him by Sertorius? After Sulla gave up the dictatorship did he really retire to a life of utter debauchery? Were Crassus' lost eagles ever returned/reclaimed  Would Pompey's tactics to needle and harass Caesar but never actually engage in direct warfare have worked? Or was he just fooling himself as he tried to avoid a confrontation he didn't think he could win? How many were involved in Caesar's assassination? How were they treated in the direct aftermath? I've read that the main instigators freaked out over the act once it was done, but I've also read that they proudly strutted down the streets proclaiming the deed to everybody. Was Antony in on it? McCullough claims he "kind of" knew and made no move, but I've also read that he found out at the last minute and tried to get warning to Caesar before it happened. Also how did the populace react? Was Caesar as popular with the lower classes as he's made out or was his death just seen as a chance to cut loose and riot? How was Sextus Pompeius considered during the days of the second Triumvirate? Was he public enemy number one and loathed, or did everybody blame the financial strife on Octavian/Augustus? Did Octavian really break into the home of the Vestal Virgins and forcibly remove Antony's will? If so, how did this not result in a massive blow to his respectability/popularity? Was the Battle of Actium mostly a piece of pro-Octavian propaganda or was it really a disastrous loss for Mark Antony? Were Agrippa and Octavian lovers, incredibly close friends or just two guys who saw the value in working together? Did Octavian kill (or order to have killed) Caesarion? Or did they just claim he was dead to prevent anybody trying to step forward and claim his inheritance/legacy at a later date? How did Egypt as a whole react to the end of the Ptolemy line?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
That's ... a lot of questions. I'll be lazy and do the ones I can give halfway correct answers for without research.Jerusalem posted:After Sulla gave up the dictatorship did he really retire to a life of utter debauchery? quote:Were Crassus' lost eagles ever returned/reclaimed quote:How many were involved in Caesar's assassination? How were they treated in the direct aftermath? I've read that the main instigators freaked out over the act once it was done, but I've also read that they proudly strutted down the streets proclaiming the deed to everybody. Was Antony in on it? McCullough claims he "kind of" knew and made no move, but I've also read that he found out at the last minute and tried to get warning to Caesar before it happened. Also how did the populace react? Was Caesar as popular with the lower classes as he's made out or was his death just seen as a chance to cut loose and riot? quote:How was Sextus Pompeius considered during the days of the second Triumvirate? Was he public enemy number one and loathed, or did everybody blame the financial strife on Octavian/Augustus? quote:Did Octavian really break into the home of the Vestal Virgins and forcibly remove Antony's will? If so, how did this not result in a massive blow to his respectability/popularity? quote:Was the Battle of Actium mostly a piece of pro-Octavian propaganda or was it really a disastrous loss for Mark Antony? quote:Were Agrippa and Octavian lovers, incredibly close friends or just two guys who saw the value in working together?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
I'll do the same with the ones I can answer more or less off the top of my head. I know some of these have been discussed a bit previously in the thread.quote:Was Marius really responsible for making Caesar the Flamen Dialis? Did he do it out of fear of being eclipsed by Caesar? There's no record of the motivation for it, but Caesar was made Flamen Dialis. I doubt it was out of fear, because Caesar was still rather young at the time. quote:Did Mark Antony indulge in pretended homosexual affairs in his youth in order to scandalize Roman society? Plutarch, who uses Antony as the embodiment of a villain, doesn't mention this among the various scummy things that he indicts Antony for, so it seems unlikely to me, even as a story that people would believe about him. quote:Did Caesar really grow up in the Subura? Was his mother an active landlord with connections to organized crime in the city? Caesar's family home was in the Suburra, a notorious red-light district. His mother was an aristocrat, which definitely implies landlord, and real estate then (as now) probably had all sorts of shady dealings going on. quote:Was Pompey as arrogant and self-confident as he is made out to be in his youth before going to Spain and getting his rear end handed to him by Sertorius? Yep. The "Magnus" part of his name ("the great"), comes from Sulla being so annoyed with his arrogance that he started calling him "Pompey Magnus  ".quote:Would Pompey's tactics to needle and harass Caesar but never actually engage in direct warfare have worked? Or was he just fooling himself as he tried to avoid a confrontation he didn't think he could win? Ultimately unknowable, since things happened a different way. quote:How many were involved in Caesar's assassination? How were they treated in the direct aftermath? I've read that the main instigators freaked out over the act once it was done, but I've also read that they proudly strutted down the streets proclaiming the deed to everybody. Was Antony in on it? McCullough claims he "kind of" knew and made no move, but I've also read that he found out at the last minute and tried to get warning to Caesar before it happened. Also how did the populace react? Was Caesar as popular with the lower classes as he's made out or was his death just seen as a chance to cut loose and riot? For the latter part of your question - Caesar's power base was with the common man. Most of his political attitudes were to give more to the Roman people - this was something of a political split in his day, with the Optimate faction of the Senate supporting the privileges of the aristocracy and the Populare faction at least giving lip service to policies that would improve life for the commons. It should be said that these weren't organized factions or political parties, but instead general attitudes or rhetorical tactics. But it speaks to the general political climate, I think. quote:Did Octavian kill (or order to have killed) Caesarion? Or did they just claim he was dead to prevent anybody trying to step forward and claim his inheritance/legacy at a later date? How did Egypt as a whole react to the end of the Ptolemy line? There's no smoking gun, so to speak. Plutarch says that Octavian had Caesarion murdered, and I think it's probable. Egypt was integrated into the Roman system very quickly after that, so I don't think there was much of a reaction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies, guys, and sorry to pepper you all with so many questions - it's an absolutely fascinating period of history and I'm keen to read more on it, though I'm sorry to say I have a weakness for narrative so I find it easier to read this stuff as the framework for historical fiction. It's pretty clear that McCullough just outright made up a lot of stuff, though she never claimed them to be 100% accurate, they make for cracking good reads. She does go a little over the top in idealizing Caesar though. Is there a good source of a middle-ground between well-written fiction with a strong basis in historical fact and dry academic textbooks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Is there a good source of a middle-ground between well-written fiction with a strong basis in historical fact and dry academic textbooks? Suetonius, Plutarch, the Historia Augusta...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
If you want to go straight to an ancient source, Plutarch might be up your alley. His book is usually called Plutarch's Lives, or sometimes called the Parallel Lives. He takes a Greek dude and a Roman dude that he thinks had similar aspects to their lives, writes a biography of each, and then (often) compares them and tries to find a moral. His stuff was the source for a few of Shakespeare's Roman plays, and I don't really find it dry at all. Mind, anything premised on "hey, let's find a moral lesson in the past" is not always going to be good history -- you may want to read it in tandem with a textbook.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Plutarch's name keeps coming up, so I'll have a look at his stuff when I get a chance. Are the Commentarii de Bello Gallico accessible to a casual reader? Caesar's personal account from a third person perspective sounds pretty fascinating, and I'm assuming they're available in English.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
If you want more, well, sensationalism, definitely go with Suetonius. Suetonius was a gossip and as someone called him dozens of pages ago, a great mix of history and tabloid. The Twelve Caesars is a fun book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
In general, they're a fairly straightforward narrative. Caesar's not interested in writing the world's most artful piece of literature using every bizarre trick in the book, just making himself look good. The biggest potential hurdle is probably how the translation deals with the Roman military background and whether it goes full literalist, literalist plus helpful notes (your definition of helpful may differ from the author's), or adapts it to a greater degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Suetonius, Plutarch, the Historia Augusta... Isn't the Historia Augusta considered far less reliable than even Plutarch and Suetonius? The list of the Thirty Tyrants contains people who probably never even existed, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Yeah it's chock full of bullshit, but it's still a good read. If you're reading ancient primary sources... well if you're reading any primary sources you need to have your bullshit filters on alert anyway. Ancient ones especially. The Gallic Wars is a nice read, not artful but interesting. Watch for Pullo and Vorenus' scene. Keep in mind this is 100% a propaganda piece designed by Caesar to make himself look good. It's been mentioned many times before but Tom Holland's Rubicon is the most readable Roman history I've ever found, there are other good ones too. I've read so many that I don't really remember them though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Speaking of Holland, I'm reading his In The Shadow of the Sword at the moment. It covers Islam as it rises in the Middle East to begin overturning Persia and Eastern Rome, and has the taste of thorough scholarship while retaining plenty of readability. There are some cheery remarks on authors trying to decipher this subject being subject to "death threats, prosecution for apostasy or even defenestration" (the footnote explains that the victim for that last was one Suliman Bashear). I kind of wish I could say more about it than it tasting of thorough scholarship: Holland is - or at least makes himself out to be - the first person to try to bring some of the historiographical struggles about early Islam to the light outside dusty academia, so it's difficult to get a sense of context or where he might be stretching things. And my period of preference is more Mycenaean, back before the 'standard' classical millennium of Cleisthenes to Odoacer, so I'm a bit at sea here after that. I guess my question is if M'sieu Fromage or anyone else in the thread with some insight on the same subject has read it and can offer me an opinion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 08:17
|
|